My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« A great story showing the Human/Canine Bond | Main | Apparent Fatal Dog Attack in Terry, MS »

February 11, 2010



These are pig-headed people who put these "laws" into place in the first place, and getting them to see their error, whether the statistics are in our favor or not, will be a long, hard road. Or I should say HAS been a long, hard road, hasn't it.

Let's face it. They don't care how many dogs die; that's not an issue for them. They don't have compassion for animals like we do. Until the regimes change to people who DO care for animals and people equally, and the laws aren't enforced by people who don't have anything better to do but harass and profile Pit Bulls and their owners, we and our pets are screwed.


Brent, I have a question about your story of the guy at the park with the dog in his car. Isn't having the dog in your car like it being in your home, and he was in no way legally required to show that ACO his dog without a warrant?


Dawn, I'm pretty confident that the answer to you question is yes - although the fact that they can SEE the dog in the car may be enough "cause" to allow them to not need a search warrant...unlike something being in your trunk, which for sure requires one. But given that the guy was in compliance, he probably thought it was no big deal....


"The officer asked if the pit bull was altered -- the man said yes. The officer then asked to see the dog's spay scar, the man ablidged and showed the scar. The officer determined it was a different type of scar, and impounded the man's dog and took it to animal shelter. "

WTF???? when did that ACO get licensed as a vet? Surely that is grounds for SOME kind of lawsuit.


Emily, it's a perfect scenerio for an animal control officer under our new quota system. They get to write a citation AND impound a dog...2 notches toward their monthly goal. There is rule that any of it has to stick or be legitimate.

Social Mange

Dawn, the United Kingdom determined that the interior of one's car is not private but public, and seized a so-called "pit bull" from a car. The owner went bankrupt trying to get his dog back. I don't believe he ever got the dog back. My apologies, I cannot remember the man's name or the dog's name.

Social Mange

There's a noticeable trail to this that occurred in OnScario as well. The animal control people weren't doing their jobs. In your post above, why was a dog left living in an abandoned, uninhabitable house? In Toronto, why was the owner of dogs with previous aggressive behaviour complaints never apprehended?

Governments of all stripes (mostly down their backs) use BSL to play CYA.


I know without a doubt that Indianapolis Councilman Mike Speedy would consider this to be an effective law. He just wants to see the number of pit bulls drop so that there will be a smaller pit bull population to be biting/mauling. Granted, this post doesn't have any details about the total pit bull population and if Dweeby got a similar passed in Indy he wouldn't have total pit bull population numbers, but his theory would be that if you seize and kill homed (but unaltered) pit bulls then you are going to slowly decrease the pit bull population (by a combination of [theoretically] fewer births and increased deaths of pit bulls). Fewer pit bulls = Fewer mouths that might bite & maul.

He doesn't care if TOTAL bites go up as long as "pit bull" bites go down in number and as a percentage of total bites. He insists that pit bulls have a unique and more devastating attack/bite style that because of their combined strength and tenacity does more damage than the average dog.

I'm not saying he's right. I'm just sharing what I know those in favor of MSN4PB believe and why they would say that your experiences with BSL/MSN are quite possibly a success.


Without a doubt Lori -- if the goal is to kill a lot of pit bulls, then the law has been an overwhelming success.

BTW, I don't have bite numbers listed here -- but the bite numbers in KCMO have been remarkably steady over the past 5 years...with little-to-no varience year to year.

amy jordan

Why was it successful in San Francisco?

amy jordan

Is this how the BSL/MSN laws are being enforced, or not?
If not, then isn't THAT the problem?

"People on both sides agree that spaying and neutering is good for pit bulls because it minimizes the number of unwanted pups and blunts aggression in males.

San Francisco's law allows animal control officers to issue a fix-it ticket to noncompliant dog owners, requiring that the pit bull be sterilized within two weeks. Animal Control officers also hand out information on low-cost and free surgeries.

Officers follow up with visits to the homes of owners who have not complied. A first violation can bring a citation and $500 fine; more than one citation can land an owner in jail and result in the city seizing the dog.

Usually, however, Animal Care and Control officers don't let it get to that point. If they return and have to write a citation, officers will take the dog from the owner - sometimes forcefully - spay or neuter the animal and return it, unless the pit bull is aggressive or officials believe it is being used in dog fights.
In the past 18 months, the agency has issued about 250 fix-it tickets, of which only 30 or so are outstanding. It has handed out 204 citations.
"We don't want to criminalize this - there are a lot of people that can't afford to spay or neuter their dogs," Friedman said. "The whole idea is not to take the animal away unless they pose a danger."



It's a good question. The answer is a bit more complicated.

#1) I think there is a lot of debate about the true effectiveness of the San Francisco ordinance. While the director who pushed for the ordinance declared it a success publicly in the article you cite, there are plenty of others there who would say the positive impact is debatable. Note these links:

#2) Even if we were to assume that San Francisco's law really did reduce pit bull intake due to less-rigorous enforcement -- I'd caution thinking that the positive impacts would be transferable in most situations.

In 2005, San Francisco simultaneous had the 10th lowest poverty rate in the country and the 5th highest average Household income. So they had (and still do have) a disproportionate amount of wealth and fewer problems with poverty. Also, in the early 2000s, San Francisco was a leader in animal shelter policy and by the early 2000s were the first to call themselves no-kill. A part of this was that, at the time, they had a very well developed low-cost/free spay/neuter program that helped the limited poverty-stricken population comply with the law. It's important to note that San Francisco's shelter had VERY high save rates before the MSN law as the low cost services were effective prior to the law being put in place.

-- So I guess I'd say, based on talking to many in San Francisco, that the results there are at best mixed (and not a resounding success) -- but that the damage from the law was likely mitigated there somewhat by an abundance of resources, a well-developed spay/neuter program, and a relatively small number of people living in poverty. So I'd contend that San Francisco's animal infrastructure and demographics helped them to be successful (if indeed they were) in spite of the law, not because of it.

The comments to this entry are closed.